If that was in any way shape or form true, that she was being blacklisted for one comment 30 years ago, then no. But as Jessica stated above, that is not what is happening or why. She ran a business that treated people terribly and illegally. Now she and her corrupt creepy brother have to pay the price.

It is so much more than the "n" word, and it's almost as if Paula herself doesn't even realize the seriousness of her actions and the actions of her family. It is also killing me how many people in my FB feed are just blindly "standing behind" her without even knowing the full story. It is so NOT about her saying something 30 years ago.

While I hate to see someone lose everything, maybe this is what it will take to get her to see the error of her thoughts and ways. I honestly feel like she was raised in this deep southern racism and somehow has failed to even grasp how wrong it is.

Celebrity endorsements are ended all the time for "minor" stuff. Dell guy for smoking pot, Afflac voice for a joke too soon after a natural disaster, accusations of wrong-doing even before a full investication or day in court.

The public also decides to drop their support for people they used to like. Dixie Chicks and Tracy Lawerence come to mind.

I don't think she'll lose everything. She has a huge fan base and will build things up again, and she's smart enough to find a way to come out of this in the end. It'll take a while, though.

And I agree, it's not just because she said a bad word 30 years ago.

I also think she angered a lot of people when it came out that she had diabetes. She obviously had it for quite a while and was still pushing all these high-fat, high-sugar recipes. So people felt like she wasn't someone whose word they could really trust anyway when she said she doesn't use those words or feel that way anymore.

Her treatment of people who worked at her restaurant is the big issue here.

EDITED TO ADD: she taught me some good baking tricks...I won't stop using them. Lol.

Because I was away from the internet while this was happening, I was only getting snippets about this and was only going on what people said to me. I missed having the perspective of this board.

"Potter75" wrote:

I think that any company should have the right to fire any person for any reason they choose. Don't you always argue that?

I do think they had the legal right to do it, that does not mean I think that was what was what was fair. That said, The article previously posted stated a lot more than what I had first heard. The way it was first explained to me did not make sense to me at all. The article makes more sense.

I also think she angered a lot of people when it came out that she had diabetes. She obviously had it for quite a while and was still pushing all these high-fat, high-sugar recipes. So people felt like she wasn't someone whose word they could really trust anyway when she said she doesn't use those words or feel that way anymore.

This is a sidebar, but I read about that as well, and I'm kind of stumped by this. I mean, if you have ever cooked one of her recipes, "healthy" is pretty much the LAST thing that comes to mind. And to look at her, she's clearly not the picture of good health (not trying to be rude by any means, but I mean she's clearly not what would be considered a healthy weight). So I kind of don't get the whole "I feel mislead" thing about her announcing that she had diabetes. I mean, I know she apparently "hid" it for 3 years, but was anyone really shocked that she has health problems that are caused or exacerbated by unhealthy food??

This is a sidebar, but I read about that as well, and I'm kind of stumped by this. I mean, if you have ever cooked one of her recipes, "healthy" is pretty much the LAST thing that comes to mind. And to look at her, she's clearly not the picture of good health (not trying to be rude by any means, but I mean she's clearly not what would be considered a healthy weight). So I kind of don't get the whole "I feel mislead" thing about her announcing that she had diabetes. I mean, I know she apparently "hid" it for 3 years, but was anyone really shocked that she has health problems that are caused or exacerbated by unhealthy food??

I must be missing something.

I think it's that after she really knew how harmful it all was, given her own diagnosis, people found it irresponsible of her to keep creating these extremely unhealthy recipes. She seemed to convey that it was okay to eat all that stuff when she herself couldn't do so.

But I agree...she is known for butter and sugar and decadence. That's why her son has a show about lightening up her recipes! If I'm going full-on decadent when I bake, I consider her recipes!

See, I don't agree with that. A chef may have things that they can't personally eat but will continue to cook with. A chef may be lactose intolerant but will use dairy for entrees/desserts. I respect that she wanted to keep privacy on her health concerns.

Never did I think she was okaying me to gorge myself on her unhealthy recipes (which many I still love!) or that she is responsible for diabetic problems in the US.

I guess the only part I can view as potentially hypocritical is the fact that she became a spokesperson for a diabetic drug, while continuing to cook the same way. But I agree with the following part of this article:

Moore, a type 2 diabetic and an educator on diabetic issues, said the news didn’t come as a surprise to him and others with the disease.

“Many of us have watched the Buttuh Queen for years cooking with no thought for the consequences and waiting to hear she was diabetic,” he said.

I agree that anybody who thought her recipes were healthy or made for everyday eating was misleading themselves. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that dumping sticks of butter into the pot is not going to contribute to a healthy diet.

It looks like it was thrown out not because there wasn't discrimination, but because the person suing wasn't specifically a victim of it, and you can't sue on behalf of others. But the sexual harassment charges (of which she was personally victim) were not thrown out.

Was this the case where the plaintiff tried to get it made into a class action that would cover all employees and the judge refused to allow it? If so, I wonder why he allowed the race discrimination piece to continue to this point? I do admit to being intrigued by the notion of second-hand discrimination. If the black people being discriminated against don't feel for whatever reason that they can step up & say, this is wrong, then why shouldn't a white person be able to say it? There wouldn't be any monetary damages, of course, but I guess I just answered that question with that statement, LOL!

What do you think will happen now that all charges have been dismissed? I think she got a very rotten deal and hope she will be able to bounce back.

But it's the same issue I posted above. They're saying that yes, there was discrimination, but the person suing wasn't the person discriminated against so that's why the case was thrown out. I'm not sure that's a "rotten deal".

What do you think will happen now that all charges have been dismissed? I think she got a very rotten deal and hope she will be able to bounce back.

But it's the same issue I posted above. They're saying that yes, there was discrimination, but the person suing wasn't the person discriminated against so that's why the case was thrown out. I'm not sure that's a "rotten deal".

I may be missing something, but I was under the impression that it was her brother that ran the restaurant, not Paula Dean. In the statement they put out- "I assumed that all of my complaints about the workplace environment were getting to Paula Deen, but I learned during this matter that this was not the case. The Paula Deen I have known for more than eight years, is a woman of compassion and kindness and will never tolerate discrimination or racism of any kind toward anyone. I now know that the workplace environment issues that I raised are being reviewed and will in the future no longer be at issue. I wish Ms. Deen and her family all the best in all of their future endeavors and I am very pleased that this matter has been now been resolved and can now be put behind us."

Paula Dean admitted to years ago using a derogatory term. She admitted that and apologised. I do not believe (and apparently the judge did not believe) that she was guilty of the charges in the case.

According to court documents filed in Savannah, GA, all claims against the TV chef have been dismissed in the suit brought by former restaurant manager Lisa Jackson, with no award of costs or fees to any party. Jackson had sued on the grounds that the work environment at Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House, owned by Deen and her brother, subjected employees to sexual harassment and racial discrimination.

Jackson, who told TODAY in July that her lawsuit "has never been about the N-word," but rather "to address Ms. Deen's patterns of disrespect and degradation of people that she deems to be inferior," suggested Friday that her issues with Deen had been settled.

"During a very difficult period in my life the Deen family gave me hope and the opportunity to work to build a brighter future for my family and me," Jackson said in a statement to TODAY.

"I assumed that all of my complaints about the workplace environment were getting to Paula Deen, but I learned during this matter that this was not the case. The Paula Deen I have known for more than eight years, is a woman of compassion and kindness and will never tolerate discrimination or racism of any kind toward anyone. I now know that the workplace environment issues that I raised are being reviewed and will in the future no longer be at issue. I wish Ms. Deen and her family all the best in all of their future endeavors and I am very pleased that this matter has been now been resolved and can now be put behind us."

I'd be willing to bet there's some under-the-table dealings going on here. The original judge didn't even drop the other charges at the time he dropped the racism charges, which leads me to think there was enough evidence for a jury to consider. So for everything to suddenly be dropped with both sides giving glowing reports of how wonderful the other party is -- and especially "without any award of costs or fees to any party," is astounding. I'm certain that someone paid off Miss Jackson a hefty sum; it just wasn't one of the parties to the lawsuit. Maybe an insurance company for the restaurant, maybe Deen's PR firm hoping to mitigate the damage against her.

And it doesn't matter if the brother is the one who ran the restaurant. Paula Deen was an owner on record, and the restaurant absolutely benefitted from her involvement, endorsement, and name recognition, even if she wasn't actively running it.

Would love to find out what really went on here. Hard to tell from what I've read but it looks like there definitely has been some discrimination going on (which Paula now says she knows she needs to address) at the restaurants, but also this person was looking to get do some damage to the Deen reputation which would get her some money and/or attention.

Looks like a combination.

Maybe we'll find out one day. I don't think either party comes out of this looking terribly clean.